Zugg Software :: View topic

Newbie Joined: 19 Nov 2005 Posts: 5

Is Pueblo Enhancement Separate from MXP?

I'd like to use MXP on my mud, but I can't really justify it unless there is a free, good client that uses it as I don't think its fair to force people to buy a client.

Are Pueblo Enhancement and Zmud's MXP the same thing, just developed further? That's what I thought originally, but I can't find the letters "MXP" tied to pueblo anywhere.

Posted: Sun May 06, 2007 4:01 pm

Warpnow,

This is just asinine. Evil or Very Mad

You come to the forum of a paid MUD client, and have the gall to ask for a free client. This is something that should have been asked in a Pueblo forum.

As for your question, Pueblo and MXP are two totally separate protocols.

Part of the problem with Pueblo is that there is no incentive to keep it moving. You can only go so far with free products. It will come a time where a free product will get abandoned. That's why I stick with MXP, because there is financial incentive to keep it alive and evolving. The MUD industry is a pretty hard one to make money. Zugg is done an amazing job surviving in this space.

Wizard Joined: 11 Jul 2002 Posts: 1265 Location: USA

Yes this question is in bad taste given bortaS statements.

I would point out that Zugg himself was the driving force behind MXP and this site is the center of its use. So Warpnow did go to the right place to ask the question, save he should have emailed Zugg or searched the site better.

So, I will give him Zugg's answer to that question obtained from searching THIS website.

http://www.mushclient.com/

That is a freeware client that supports MXP. It was a pay product, but it is now freeware.
I have never used it. And I daresay that their company probably had to abandon for pay development of that product as they could not compete with Zugg!

Newbie Joined: 19 Nov 2005 Posts: 5

The hostility here is amazing.

I ask my question because Zmud, according to its feature list, supports pueblo emulation. I was curious to know the differences between MXP and pueblo enhancement to decide which to use on my mud, as Zmud supports both according to its feature list.

Bad taste? I don't think so. Asking questions about a product is not unusual.

Wizard Joined: 14 Oct 2000 Posts: 1368

Newbie Joined: 19 Nov 2005 Posts: 5

Thanks.

I tried posting in the developper's forum, it wouldn't let me for some reason.

Wizard Joined: 14 Oct 2000 Posts: 1368

Posted: Mon May 07, 2007 5:44 pm

There is a topic in the CMUD help file called Pueblo Emulation that describes the subset of Pueblo implemented in CMUD. There is a similar article for zMUD in the Support/zMUD Support menu at the top of this web site. Pueblo is supported via the MXP code in zMUD/CMUD. So, only a subset is implemented. For example, none of the VMRL stuff is implemented in zMUD/CMUD.

The main difference between the MXP support in zMUD/CMUD and other MUD clients (like MUSHclient) is that none of the other clients support the inline IMG tag. For more Pueblo MUDs, the IMG tag is an important part of the implementation. So, since zMUD/CMUD support inline images, it has more Pueblo support than other clients (other than the actual Pueblo client of course).

In general, Pueblo is a dead protocol that is no longer actively developed. It was only released as a public protocol after the original Pueblo client died and it became open source. MXP has *always* been an open and public protocol and was actively developed by myself along with the author of MUSHclient, along with several MUD coders. That's why there are more clients that support MXP. Although again, none of the other clients support inline images.

Anyway, getting away from the flames in this topic, there are plenty of good reasons to implement MXP on your MUD. Plenty of free clients support most of MXP. It's only when you get into images that you might have trouble. You'd certainly be better off using MXP rather than Pueblo. If you look at the MUD listing on the MUD Connector, you will find that a large number of MUDs already support MXP.